To subscribe to this question you need to
sign in to the AnswerBank or register
if you are not already a member. All you need is a valid email address to register.
I agree with Waldo, the bear`s got more meat on it than her and better looking too
jno Fri 03/10/08 00:29
she has an interesting face, which the cover at least seems to have been ditched. But I don't think the 'little girl look' goes any further than a ribbon in her hair and a giant teddy. She plainly has an adult body. It seems a bit bizarre to me (doubtless some men will think otherwise); but I don't find it objectionable.
jno Fri 03/10/08 00:30
PS jayne, are you seriously suggesting Playboy's picture editors missed something? I think not.
JockSporran Fri 03/10/08 04:34
Wow! What a doll! Thanks for showing me that, Ethel.
China Doll Sat 04/10/08 13:51
I just get the urge to make her a sunday roast and chocolate cake... she looks like she needs feediing! I'm afraid I don't find her sexy or attractive at all and as such the picuture just leaves me feeling that she needs to eat something.
chakka35 Sat 04/10/08 14:24
The Times reported yesterday that 'Christians' are demanding a boycott of M&S because of this picture.
If there is a reasonably sensible Christian reading this could he or she please explain what there is in semi-nudity that is objectionable to their plainly bonkers co-religionists.
jno Sat 04/10/08 16:13
chakka, I wouldn't be surprised if the nudity inside the magazine is more than semi. It doesn't seem anti-Christian, though, unless there is an 11th commandment along the lines of 'thou shalt not commit nudity'.
CT Sat 04/10/08 23:17
She's been more nude than that before 'for art'.
no.knowledge Sun 05/10/08 20:07
i've just popped back for another peek!
thanks again Ethel.
terambulan Sun 05/10/08 20:18
If she cant exploit her looks now for income she certainly wont have much luck in her 60s. Go girl, I say!